My issue is that they are just making an example of Reed. He only has 3 questionable hits in 3 years, at least 2 of which were very soft. They should have suspended those guys who actually launched themselves at the receiver.

So it seems they're drawing the line after three of these hits, and Reed was the lucky guy to get there first.

If true, it would have been nice to know that beforehand

You shouldn't need to be told to quit breaking rules.

No, but its pretty much standard practice for the terms of punishments to do laid out in advance before they are implemented. Just look at the NBA's rules re flagrant fouls or soccer's rules regarding red-cards and the automatic suspensions they bring. They are set out in advance and everyone knows about them. That is not the case here.

How many times do laws get instituted retro-actively? (Genuine question that I don't know the answer to but I can't imagine there are many instances)

Flagrant fouls and red-cards have been around a lot longer than this new era of player safety. The NFL is kinda figuring it out as they go along

That, and you can't compare them since flagrant and red cards can get you toss from the game. You can commit an unlimited number of fouls in the NFL, outside of fighting or touching an official, and still stay in the game.

That's not true. They haven't thrown anyone out yet, but it's written in the rules that they can.

Quote:

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

While i know you're talking about helmet to helmet hits, your statement isn't true. I know of at two guys (and there are probably more) that have been thrown out for personal fouls. Though they were both after the play fouls

Kicking the guy out for this infraction.. and in turn having him lose out on $400,000+ is now affecting his livelihood.. I just have a hard time standing with the NFL on this one...

Allowing him to commit helmet-to-helmet hits is potentially affecting other players livelihoods, in addition to potentially affecting his.

Shouldn't play the game then.

... Who shouldn't play the game?

I'm responding to someone criticizing this suspension for "affecting [Reed's] livelihood". That's a rather weak argument. Yes, people can get hurt on any play. But the reason this type of play has been outlawed is because of the increased risk of injury (both long and short term) to both Reed and other players.

The "If you don't want to get hurt, don't play" argument is just silly. People are willing to assume the risks of playing, so long as everybody else is abiding by the rules. It's hard to make that argument when the risk of injury is increased by illegal hits which aren't supposed to happen in the first place._________________

MrDrew wrote:

Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?

Kicking the guy out for this infraction.. and in turn having him lose out on $400,000+ is now affecting his livelihood.. I just have a hard time standing with the NFL on this one...

Allowing him to commit helmet-to-helmet hits is potentially affecting other players livelihoods, in addition to potentially affecting his.

Shouldn't play the game then.

... Who shouldn't play the game?

I'm responding to someone criticizing this suspension for "affecting [Reed's] livelihood". That's a rather weak argument. Yes, people can get hurt on any play. But the reason this type of play has been outlawed is because of the increased risk of injury (both long and short term) to both Reed and other players.

The "If you don't want to get hurt, don't play" argument is just silly. People are willing to assume the risks of playing, so long as everybody else is abiding by the rules. It's hard to make that argument when the risk of injury is increased by illegal hits which aren't supposed to happen in the first place.